Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List Generic Tools' and includes an HTTP GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'Generic Tools' entail. The description is too sparse to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but under-specified. It consists of a single sentence fragment that restates the name and adds endpoint details, which is efficient but lacks necessary explanatory content. While not verbose, it fails to provide a complete, front-loaded explanation, making it less helpful than a well-structured description would be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Generic Tools' are, how results are returned, pagination details, or error conditions. The endpoint hint is useful but insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full context and usage without relying heavily on the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., company_id as 'Unique identifier for the company', page as 'Page', per_page as 'Elements per page'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even clarifying the optional filters__project_id. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List Generic Tools. [Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools] GET /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/generic_tools' restates the tool name ('List Generic Tools') and adds minimal context about resource type and endpoint. It lacks a specific verb beyond 'List' and does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling list tools (e.g., list_generic_tool_items, list_tools_enabled_for_workflows_v2_0). The purpose is vague regarding what 'Generic Tools' are.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Company Admin/Custom - Configurable Tools' which hints at administrative context but does not specify prerequisites, target users, or compare to sibling tools like list_generic_tool_items. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool naming.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.